ps418

What is it that Atkins is lying about, specifically?

Nickle

Exactly. If you are going to limit yourself to two isles in the supermarket, does it matter which two?

Personally I'd like to see some long term studies. He wrote this book 30 years ago. Should be plenty.

doghouse

Small correction. Type I diabetes is caused by the inability of the pancreas to produce insulin, due to immune-mediated destruction of the insulin-producing beta cells. It is not an insulin receptor defect.

Kvalhion

I find the negative comments about Dr Sears and the Zone diet pretty comical. I am not really sure why people would be so hateful towards the diet, but I would venture to guess there is some personal vestment involved.

I've read several of the Zone books. The explanations and science discussed in the books make sense. I've read many, many posts on forums from people who follow the Zone and they are almost always positive. The ones that aren't positive are either people who have an interest in another diet or those who were not able to stick with the basics. Those that have followed the basics have documented success. They take blood tests to show how their body fat has decreased, their lean body mass has increased or stayed the same, their "bad" cholesterol has decreased while their "good" cholesterol has increased, as well as other indicators.

To denounce the founder of the Zone as an idiot and say the diet is bullshit is disingenuous. The principles of the Zone diet make sense. There are many independent studies on the Zone that verify Dr Sears findings every single time.

So forgive me if I do not buy into retractors of the Zone diet without evidence to show why it doesn't work. With thousands of testimonials, independant studies, and sound reason and logic, there is simply no compelling reason to believe the Zone is anything other than what it presents itself to be.

Godot

If I tried to convince you that the sun hung from the sky by large threads from over the horizon, and you knew evidence to the contrary, wouldn't you be skeptical about pretty much everything else I say? From my perspective, Atkins is pulling a fast one on consumers *and they're buying into it* It really pisses me off.

At the end of the day, all weight loss diets boil down to energy balance, irrespective of the trendy little add-on bullshit that has been attached to them.
The Atkins diet is severely limited in energy intake. A blind goatherder could follow it and lose weight, without knowing the underlying rationale for the diet. Although in no way to be construed as my professional opinion, if you think that the Atkins diet is your best bet for weight loss then go for it: I won;t try to stop you. There just happens to be some fairly significant health risks that are ovelooked in the pursuit of the "ideal" figure. I happen to feel that the Atkins diet goes a long way towards exacerbating those issues.

King Rat

I'm with ya, I'm pretty skeptical myself. And I hope I'm not giving the impression that I don't want to know the negatives to this diet, I do. I'm not "buying" into anything other than the results.

As I mentioned in my first post, I'm free of sugar, caffeine, and processed flours for the FIRST time in my life. This is worth the price of admission alone. The fact that I've lost 20 pounds is just a happy side effect.

I'd love to know if it is because of cutting out the afore-mentioned items instead of carbs. I love cereal, bread, pasta and the like, ya know?

Godot

I find Sears' approach comical. I'm not hateful towards the diet, I just don't approve of the methods or scientific rationale provided: it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Damn right I have some personal vestment here. How would you like it if some idiot with half a clue wandered into your workplace and started spewing nonsense and half-truths which run contrary to what you're telling your employees? Wouldn't you be a bit pissed?

Body fat is measured through skinfold measures, or if you're really high-tech, with hydrodensitometry. Blood tests don't enter into it. Changes in LBM are calculated using the same basic body compositoin data. The only relevant blood measures to be made are in regard to blood lipid profiles, cell counts, and immunological factors. Pretty much everything else is subject to a homeostatic balance and will remain fairly constant in the blood (except in clinical situations).

In practice, the zone diet is not really all that bad for you (there are far worse options out there). However, the specific claims made by Sears with respect to the zone diet are not borne out by the scientific literature. If I recall, Sears makes some claims to the effect that certain grain products are 100% CHO. If you actually took the time to look these same food products in the food tables (but then again, that's my job), you would see that they are closer to 80% CHO and include protein in them. But I guess that's still "sound reason and logic"...

A testimonial isn't worth the paper it's printed on. They are used to bolster the appeal of a product of dubious validity throught an appeal to the emotions. No self-respecting scientist involved in experimental research requires testimonials to convince you of the veracity of their claims; the results are sufficient enough incentive. Testimonials are, at best, a promotional gimmick, a tool used to sell more of whatever product is being schlocked.

I'm not sure what you mean by "independent studies." If you're suggesting that independent studies include those found on Sears' website or on any other pro-zone website, then i have some beachfront property to sell you in Montana. Come back to me when you can find me some impartial research investigating the efficacy of the zone diet. When I say impartial, I expect it to be presented in a peer-reviewed journal. Anything less is beneath contempt.

Godot

Hey man, good for you! I'm writing all of this from memory at this point, so if you want me to counter any specific arguments you'll need to state them explicitly so I can tear them down.

The only nutritional side-effect from sugar over-consumption is dental caries. Beyond that, it relates to the passive consumption of energy that we wouldn;t normally account for in a dietary log. It's easy to pack it on if you're snacking all the bloody time.
I doubt you're fully free from caffeine in your diet, but I'm with you. Even people that are consuming a couple of cups of joe a day fall within the "safe" range set forth in the guidelines for caffeine consumption.
I'm not overly fond of processed flours either, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them either. They are simply one choice amongst many, and each possess pros and cons. Some people just find less processed flours unpalatable. They aren't placed at any nutritional disadvantage because of their choice, they just aren;t exposed to the whole grain (merely the highly refined bits). I argue from the nutritional guideline exhorting people to consume more whole grain products. Simply put: less processed = closer to the whole grain.

Cutting the sugars out has probably done the most towards helping shed the pounds. One flour over the other wouldn't matter, and caffeine would probably help take the wieght off (but I didn't just say that. It was your imagination).
I couldn't make a more definitive diagnosis without knowing your dietary habits prior to the change in intake relative to what you are doing now. Also, exercise and activity levels play a large role in weight loss, but that should be patently obvious.

King Rat

So, then the only things that are left are the reduction of carbs and the reduction of calories.

I guess I could test it myself and start eating carbs again, far from double blind though, eh?

Kvalhion

The point remains the same. Those who have followed the principles of the Zone diet for years have measured themselves and have found that they have lost body fat while retaining or gaining LBM. The blood tests for the lipid profiles show positive results. If the principles are bullshit, why would this be the case? I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that following the Zone diet produces negative effects. If that is your claim, then why don't you produce some totally independent data that reveals this? Simply disregarding scientific research because it is done on behalf of the ones who are trying to illustrate a point isn't very helpful.

What you mean to say is that if your claim is true, that invalidates everything Dr Sears has spent years researching? Dr Sears is not selling me something in an attempt to control my life. In fact, other than his books and his new products from Sears Labs, he stands to make very little profit from the Zone. What he has done is outline a method of eating healthy that has been shown to work. He does not nitpick on minute amounts of proteins, fats, or carbs nor does he advocate exact mathetical caclulations when putting together a meal. More to the point, in Dr Sears food block system, the proteins found in non-dairy or non-meat sources are not significant enough to be concerned about. The carbohydrates that spike insulin levels are.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, Godot. However, I do feel that the unsolicited responses by people who have followed the Zone diet (or other diets for that matter) are worth taking into consideration, especially when an overwhelming majority of those without a vested interest in the diet (other than their own health) report positive experiences. Dismissing people who discuss their experiences on diets as irrelevant or brainwashed is pretty fucking insulting.

The results are sufficient enough incentive. Other than some inconsequential technicalities, you have said nothing that invalidates any of the research conclusions done from independent studies. In my opinion, that there is conclusive and consistent research that shows the effectiveness of the Zone diet and countless testimonials of people losing weight, feeling less hungry, and having more energy leads me to believe in the veracity of the Zone.

That is simply ridiculous. Perhaps if you read any of the studies, you will see that Dr Sears is rarely the one conducting the studies. Your dismissal of the dozens of doctors and reserachers in the articles posted is simply assinine. To call Harvard studies biased towards the Zone is equally unfounded. What I do see is scientific data that time and again reaffirms the ideas presented in the Zone. If this doesn't meet up with your standards of research than that is your problem, not mine.

Why not put your money where your mouth is? Post some references to studies that independently show that your idea of the carb-protein-fat ratio has been scientifically shown to produce positive results. In all honesty, all I am seeing is that the reasons you are against the Zone diet is because it flies in the face of what you do for a living and what you have chosen to believe about nutrition. Posting that people like Dr Sears and the concept of the Zone is bullshit is, in my opinion, a disservice to those who would read threads such as these and be influenced by your words.